Governments cannot govern 'life'; but, they must govern the 'condition of togetherness'.

Although there are 'Many' human beings on the planet, Governments cannot govern 'Life'. This fact should not need an explanation. Governments are necessary, as places of Authority, in the 'condition of togetherness. Human beings in the 'condition of togetherness' need Government. That's an absolute necessity; however, each human being has his/her own 'life' and that's a 'gift of Nature' and has no relation to the government in which she/he was born; hence, Government has no authority over 'that life'. Nevertheless, no individual can long live in isolation; they must live in a 'condition of togetherness'. Hence; the need for Government. Every Government is a human political 'construction', and the 'value system' of that institution of Government is determined by the respect for the Freedom and Equality shown to the human beings under its governing authority. A Government cannot abuse 'those' that give it the right to exist. 'Peoples' come first; then, comes Government. So, it would seem that the question is what's wrong with Government? Unfortunately, Governments cannot function without People. OK, so what's wrong with People? Well, it seems that 'Leaders of Governments' cannot handle political Power. How sad. People 'create' Governments, and then, succumb to its 'Power'.

Government is essential to the 'condition of togetherness' but, it should never suppress 'life'.

The 'condition of togetherness' requires that Governments exist. Governments are duty bound to mandate legal rules for the protection of all. So, where do we 'look' to examine whether a law offends the 'requirements' of Law, as distinguished from the suppression of Life? That's not an easy task, yet, we can examine the 'generality' of the requirement in such manner as to determine the 'generality of application'. Obviously, the Law must apply to all in an equal manner, and that means in a non-discriminatory manner. To be sure, there will be categories of application, but the generality or essence of its application cannot suppress the basic 'life impulse'. That's where the problems kick-in. 'Governing' and 'Law' applies to the 'condition of togetherness' in its essential 'condition of togetherness', i.e., as a 'whole', in its 'completeness', or, in its 'inclusivity'. Contrary to that is the fact that "each and every individual matters"; "everyone counts", everyone 'is a life'. The 'life' of the human individual is sacred. At this point enters the problematic. Government does not and cannot 'govern' Life. It governs the 'condition of togetherness'. It has already been pointed out, one solitary human being on an island does not need the institution of Government. Of course, that's the other end of the problem. An individual can live any way s/he pleases. The clash between the requirements of living in a 'condition of togetherness', and the natural Right to live 'as one pleases' becomes the 'basic clash' of civilizations. Sometimes, we have to face the fact that our problems are not 'all' government problems; they are 'human problems'. How sad; we don't know what we want.

Democracy is being 'overpowered' by economics.

The democratic spirit is being overpowered by the economic spirit. Stated differently, the values of democracy are being overpowered by the values of the economy; even more clearly, freedom and equality are undervalued, while 'money' is so over-valued that its becoming our God. How sad. The greatest motivation for human activity is an 'artifact'. Why do we undervalue freedom and equality? Why has a 'medium of exchange' become so valuable that we greedily hoard and collect it, to the point of aspiring to be on the Forbes List, or the Top 1%. Where are we going? The answer is not that money is more valuable than freedom and equality, but that the human condition is so weak that it pursues money and its substitutes, because, in actuality, it does not seem to understand that freedom and equality is a 'natural phenomena' of the human condition. It does not come from Government; it comes from Nature, but Government has a duty to protect it in the 'condition of togetherness'. That's what makes us 'civilized'. How sad. Of course, the 'human condition' has been 'down-sized' by the legal corporate structure, to the point, that a corporation is more 'protected' by Government than the human condition. Government comes to the rescue of 'suffering' corporations, with billions of dollars, while it helps the 'retired', the 'worker', the sick, the suffering, with a measly 'few dollars'. Then, it has the gall to label one as 'necessary' and the other as 'welfare'. Sad and sick; Plutocrats are at the helm. But, they will soon discover that their 'enemy' are not the 'common folk' at the Bottom of Government, but the other Plutocrats, that 'will vie' for that 'top position'. Try to understand, 'greed' can never be satisfied. How sad and stupid.

The "State" or "Nation" are necessary politiical concepts that are rendered into Institutions.

The Nation is a necessary Institution. The reason for that is that there are an infinite number of human beings in the World and humanity could not survive without Government. However, all Human beings are born in Nature, and Governments are 'constructed' or set-up, by the very human beings who are to be 'the governed'. Hence, the different types of Governments have been constructed in the 'historical context' of their 'beginnings'. That should be an obvious fact to every governing Institution. Stated differently, humans have no choice in the matter of being born, while Governments are mere constructions by the human beings. Nevertheless, Governments need 'Power' in order to Govern. Hence, the Power of Government over the human condition. This should be clear to every Government in the world. Hence, Governments and Nations are dependent on the human condition. Hence, the Human condition is entitled to its 'natural' freedom and equality, while s/he exists within a 'constructed political framework'. Of course, in todays World, People are born into an 'already constructed' political structure, and hence have some 'inferior sense' that Government is a 'superior entity'. But, that is never the case. People born into a natural freedom and equality are entitled to a 'political Freedom and Equality' as a necessary 'construction'. People need Government, but Government should never abuse its 'powerful artificial nature'. People create Government; Government does not create People.

The concept of the 'State' or 'Nation' is real because it's an 'embodied concept'.

When we say the State is a "persona ficta", we mostly imply that the concept is a fiction. When we use the term "fiction" we usually imply its 'unreal'. The fact is that the concept of the State or a concept of 'Nation' is 'real'. By real, I mean, its nature is not 'fictional'. Its a 'real political institution'. This fact can be ratified by anyone who is incarcerated or compelled to pay taxes. To be sure, the concept is a 'general linguistic term' that encompasses a huge geographical area with a specific 'political Identity' with 'Power'. To say that its a 'fiction', in whatever form, is ludicrous. The State or Nation is real and that term includes each and every 'real' human individual, living within the 'political limits' of its Identity. The geographical area may not be 'continuous' or 'contiguous', but its political 'Identity' is 'One' and has political 'Power. To be sure, a political concept is a linguistic generalization, but it encompasses real human beings. A political entity. or State' or Nation, cannot exist but for its People. Without 'real people', a 'verbal generalization' is empty, vacuous, insignificant, and has no power. But, as a political Institution with People, it is Powerful, and has a duty to the People that created it. Every Nation has inherent Power and every Nation must learn to get along with other Nations. Of course, the 'People of the World' must also learn to get along with each 'Other', but it becomes easier when 'their Nations' learn to get along with 'other Nations'.

A 'People' must support their Governemnt; but, a Governemnt must support 'the People'.

Its absolutely necessary to say that 'a People' must support their Government. Its equally necessary that a Government must support their People. Of course, neither of the two 'somewhat similar' ways of 'support' are the same. A people usually supports their Government by paying taxes, serving in the Military, serving in 'Government and social' positions of authority, by running for election, and by following established 'mores' of social behavior, etc.. In return, the Government provides for the 'general welfare' of its People, by helping provide jobs, establishing rules (laws) of interaction between the Peoples, providing some system of 'social security', making homes available, establishing medical care, etc. Obviously, the Governments 'relation' to the People must be exercised through the established social and political institutions between the Top and the Bottom. To the contrary, the Bottom or the People relate to the Government by participating in the established social or political institutions of the form of Government. Some of the Individuals duties may be unpleasant, e.g., participation in War; paying taxes, etc.. Although the 'relation' between the Bottom to the Top may sometimes be 'disagreeable', the Individual at the Bottom has a duty to his/her Government. However, that same relation also 'flows' from the Top to the Bottom. That's the relation that must acknowledge that the Top is performing an obligation to govern the Bottom and that it must do so in a 'just manner'. This requires that the social and political institutions respect and protect the 'freedom and equality' of each individual. Otherwise, Who needs Government?

Political Parties are usually 'oppositional'; but, they don't have to be.

Political Parties are usually oppositional; but they don't have to be. If both Parties exist within a Democracy, the difference could well be a difference in approach, and not a difference in 'less' or 'more' democracy. Obviously, the difference in approach would just be a different way of bringing about the 'same' or 'similar' result, but in no case would it be a non-democratic result. But, the usual differences in the Ideology of the Parties, create a 'result' that cannot be considered completely Democratic. The problematic then becomes, "how can political parties in a democracy be non-democratic"? The term "party" in a political context means "a collection of similar minded individuals that have a particular way of viewing and doing something", that applies to everyone under Government. Unfortunately, that makes 'democratic problems' into personal 'human problems'. How can that be surmounted in the political sphere? The truth? It can't. The only approach available is to really understand what democracy means i.e., the Freedom and Equality of each Individual, and to compute into the 'democratic critique' of the 'democratic social status', a real mathematical perspective that includes every real individual, and which leaves no one out. Notice, that I leave corporations out, because they are not real persons, and I refer to the Individuals as 'real'. A 'social', contemplated as a political unity, must exclude the 'artificial'. I do not mean that they are never considered, to the contrary, they are very important. But, lets get 'real' about our situation. The 'human problematic' is a 'real' problem. First, lets sort out the human problematic, the artificial can work itself out.

The Party system, rightfully implemented, could be a blessing to Democracy.

The Party system could be a blessing to a Democratic political structure. The reason for that, is that different approaches can generate change in the direction to 'perfecting' the 'political concepts' of Freedom and Equality. However, if the differences in the so-called ideology of the Parties is not so much a 'political difference' as it is an 'economic difference', the result will be catastrophic. Why catastrophic? Mostly, because one Party emphasizes the 'political aspects' while the other emphasizes the economic aspects, or, both Parties emphasize the economic aspect, and everybody knows, that democracy has nothing to do with economics. Its true that Capitalism can flourish in a Democracy, but we must be careful that, it not be, at the expense of Freedom and Equality of the Individual. The political ideal of Freedom and Equality cannot 'motor' an economy; while the economic ideal of 'profits cannot motor a Democracy. In such cases, the economic Ideal causes damage to the political ideal by substituting economic values in place of political values. The political values of Freedom and Equality cannot be replaced by profits. Then, we must ask, why do we have institutions about the 1%; the Forbes list; whose number One; who's the richest man in America?, in the World? Economics and money are essential to everyone, but we must be careful that we don't create a 'lop-sided' economic monstrosity, in place of, a living, democratic, economy; i.e., a viable Democracy. We are sacrificing freedom and equality, for a pocket-full of money. Try 'Incorporating' your 'diurnal-personal-life' into a 'corporate life' and discover that there is no such thing. You don't have a 'corporate life'. We are destroying our own lives by replacing the political values of freedom and equality with money. How sad, we 'die' in 'castles'.

The political term "Revolution" is a much misunderstood term.

The political term "Revolution" is a much misunderstood term. The 'term' does not include such 'flare-ups', or, 'set of contraries' postulated by 'antagonistic' political Parties'; nor, does it include 'minor' physical skirmishes such as 'demonstrations' sit-ins, etc.. No; revolutions are against the 'political foundations' of the very form of Government under which a People live. Its an attempt to change the 'rules of the Game' and to establish a 'new foundation' for political activity. Since the basis of a Democracy are the Freedom and Equality of every individual, it is impossible to have a 'political revolution' in a Democracy. Why is that? Well, simply, the form of Government is already instituted as a Democracy, and hence all a democracy can do is to try to 'compel' a more accurate definition of Freedom and Equality. Hence, most political Parties can not be 'revolutionary', they can only compel 'adherence' and 'recognition' of a proper understanding of Freedom and Equality. That is precisely the case with 'racial discrimination' and 'economic imbalances'. A democracy cannot have both of these 'problems' and claim to be democratic. Why? Because real 'Freedom and Equality' cannot exist in a 'social' that has 'racial discrimination' and 'economic imbalances'. Democracies should not tolerate 'racial discrimination' nor the '1%'. So, lets change the political rules in the case of the 'discrimination'; and lets change the 'economic rules' in the case of the 1%. That may not be revolutionary, but it certainly is a much better understanding of 'real democracy'.

The 'State' or Nation is not a Persona Ficta.

The State, or, the Nation, is not a 'Persona Ficta', if by 'Persona Ficta', is meant a fictional entity; the State cannot be fictional. The Concept of the State or the Nation is real and is the 'verbal tag' attributed to the 'condition of togetherness' in which every Individual finds him/herself in. In other words, the Nation is as real as the Individuals within it, viz., you and I are real and so is the 'condition of togetherness' in which we find ourselves. It is 'not possible' to say that we, as Individuals, are not real- I am real and I think you are too- and hence we, in a 'condition of togetherness', must also be real. If one Individual is real, so must all Individuals. The only difference would be the 'size' of the 'condition of togetherness', or stated differently, the size of the "State" or "Nation". The verbal tag, "State" or "Nation" is merely a notion that identifies all of us in the 'condition of togetherness'. It merely gives us a 'political Identity'. This political Identity describes the political affiliations, type of Government, Nationality, etc., of the citizens within the geographical and legal parameters of a "State" or "Nation". Nevertheless, and in spite of political differences, every real human being has the same 'human nature' as all other human beings. "National", or, "political" differences, does not, and cannot, attribute 'more or less' humanity to the human condition. We are all in the same boat. How often we hear that statement and yet we do not appreciate what it states. States and Nations are different by virtue of 'political Identity' and type of Government, but the 'human condition' is the same in every living Individual, regardless of the difference in the State or the Nation, in which s/he finds him/herself in. The sad part of all this is that, a "State" or "Nation" has 'power' and cannot function without the 'human element'.

Capitalism can flourish in a Democracy; but, it can also lead to Plutocracy.

Capitalism is an economic system that can flourish in a Democracy, but it can also lead to Plutocracy. One of the problems of Capitalism, is that it can attempt to substitute itself in place of democratic principles. I mean, it can consider "money", the end result of organizing in a manner to solely make profits, in lieu of contributing to the general welfare of the Bottom of Government, or, the People at the Bottom of Government. Capitalism is a form of economic organization that must be arranged in a 'right manner', viz., to make profits. Well that's ok, but it must never 'substitute' for the freedom and equality that makes it possible. Without Freedom and Equality, capitalism cannot exist. Yet, it attempts to replace the very spirit that made its existence possible. What happened? Simply, Money and 'making a profit' became 'personal values' to real individuals, that became more important than the Freedom and Equality of every 'real human being' within the Nation. As we know, it even invented' new 'economic persons', viz., corporations, that are protected by the Constitution. The Top 1% hold most of the economic value in existence in the whole economy. Maybe we already live, in a Plutocracy, or, an Oligarchy? Of course, every real Individual in the social is Free to run for Political Office, or, is s/he? Then, why do the candidates need to raise Millions, or Billions, to even think of running for Office? Oh, its simple. Our so-called Democracy has been 'bought' by 'Corporate Governments', and money, and 'real Freedom and Equality' has been burned at the stake, by the inextinguishable fires, of the Profits engine. Democracy is dying; Freedom and Equality no longer matter; what matters now is your Bank Account.

The folly of the Party system.

The establishment of a political Party system could be a valuable asset to government. Unfortunately, the usual result is a division between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. If one examines the political postures of two opposing Parties, its not only obvious, but actually 'declared' that the major differences is what they call, "more Government" or "less Government". Unbelievable. Parties, in a Democracy, should be attempting to insure and protect the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, at the Bottom of the governing process. Instead, one Party emphasizes Government and the other wants to do away with Government. In an established Democracy, the issue is never about Government (it already has the best form); its about the People at the Bottom of the governing process. Its not about taking away from 'One' and giving to the 'Other'. Its not that difficult; its about protecting and insuring the Freedom and Equality of every Individual, regardless of Race, color, creed, or economic standing. Just take inventory; is every individual being treated equally and fairly? Race doesn't matter; color of skin doesn't matter; 'belief system' doesn't matter; gender doesn't matter; economic standing ( rich or poor)doesn't matter; and the important thing is, what will either Party do to equalize the economic standing of everyone? Its unfortunate that "money" has replaced "democracy"; but if we live in a 'rich' Nation, why does the 1% hold all the "money"?; why can't more benefits, of all kinds, inure to the benefit of every human being in the Nation? Its unbelievable, a 'Rich Nation' with 'huge pockets' of People who are 'dis-enfranchised', poor; needy; sick; helpless; hungry; and 'homeless'. Oh, we have already set aside a social separate 'linguistic category' for the "homeless"; they are the 'ones' who live under bridges, etc.( of course, they are included, but that's not what I mean). No! I mean the most 'abused sector' in a Rich Nation, the 99%.

Revolution is the natural Right of every Individual living within any form of Government.

Revolution, is the natural Right of every Individual living within any established Nation or Government. Of course, in a Democracy, that Right is protected by its Constitution. A Democratic Government, having being properly established, provides for the protection and the insuring of the Freedom and Equality of every Individual living within its borders. Under the establishment of such a proper political organization, every individual retains his/her Right to revolution. No Individual, living alone on some remote Island, needs a Government, and no 'Government' can assume 'control' of such an Island, and purport to govern said individual. One Individual does not need Government, and no Government can assume forceful control of the human condition in its natural condition of existing. But, once the lone Individual begins to live with 'many Individuals' in a "condition of togetherness", the need for 'some form' of Government becomes necessary. Hence, the need arises for the establishment of the most 'rightful type' of Government. Of course, a Nation is as much a 'fictional entity' as a corporation. They both need human beings to operate the 'entity'. Nevertheless, a Nation must be properly 'constituted' and the Right to Revolution must be properly protected. That's what the First Amendment of the Constitution does. It protects the Right of every Individual,... "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It provides 'protection' from 'both sides' of the Right; the assembly 'must be peaceable', and the 'enforcement by the State' of that right, must also be proper. Its a 'political shame' when neither side knows the 'parameters' of that Right. Its so easy to be violent; its difficult to be democratic. What a shame.

Law is a necessary institution in every Democracy.

The Legal system is a necessary institution in every Democracy. Without Law, there can be no Order. Without Order a social is in disarray. It is in the very nature of a democracy, that it have a Legal System. The reason for that is because a democracy insures the Freedom and Equality of every Individual in the social. Every Individual is Free and Equal and hence is free to exercise that Freedom and Equality. Of course, the exercise of that Freedom and Equality must be delineated by Legal and Social rules for every-day and institutional interactions. That's why a social, at the Bottom of Democratic Government, has a Right to revolt, viz., if conditions are such, that the Freedom and Equality of the Individual, are being abused. By the same token, and from the Top of the Top/Bottom relation in every Government, social and Legal rules must be laid down for the purpose of the expression, as well as the protection, of that Freedom and Equality. Hence, the art of Governing requires proper legislative enactments in order to structure a smoothly running social. A 'smoothly running social' needs Law and Order. In turn, Law and Order needs for Individuals to live democratically, morally, and Legally responsible lives. Law is a social institution that structures the expression and the protection of the Freedom and equality of each and every Individual.

The 'enemy' of a Democracy can be its own Economy.

The 'Global' enemy of a Democracy is its own Capitalistic Economy. How can that be? Simply, by having a fine-tuned economy that includes 'legal-fictions' called "corporations", the democratic principle of Freedom and Equality is undermined by the creation of fictional entities that are 'equal' to real human beings. We have endowed the corporate fiction with the same Constitutionally protected principles that apply to real human beings. At one time in our history, some corporate protection may have been necessary, but continued assimilation of the 'attributes' of the 'human condition', are not necessary. That is the judicial attitude that made Citizens United possible. Of course, some protection is necessary, but to say that corporations need protection from human beings is ludicrous; its human beings that need protection from corporations. The Freedom and Equality of the human condition cannot be encroached upon by a 'corporate society'. To go in that 'direction' is to replace 'human society' by a 'corporate society. Of course, some say we already live in a corporate society. Nevertheless, we should not become victims of our own 'creations'. The Freedom and Equality of the human condition is superior to any 'form of Government'; any form of economy; and any 'institutional structure' in the social.

In a Democracy, elections become necessary.

Every Democracy must hold elections. Of course, every Nation has its 'electoral rules'. In a real democracy, each and every Political Party fields its candidates. However, the 'political tensions' sought to be remedied, are not always democratic in nature. Add to this, the fact that, not all political Parties are truly democratic. By this, I mean some Parties favor and support the 'corporate nature' of the 'economy' and the 'social'. It is true, that we need corporations but, politics is an entirely different game. Its not an economic game; its a political game and the rules of politics are very different from the rules of the economy. Nevertheless, at this point we are confronted with the fact that, all political candidates need money, to finance their campaigns, and hence, the entire process favors those with money, or the rich. That's unfortunate, but true. Consequently, what real democratic candidates must learn, is to use money without 'giving-in' to contributors who are wealthy, and who favor economic 'advantages', 'tax' favoritism, and further 'corporate entrenchment', at the expense of human Freedom and Equality. Of course, if we changed the rules and laws to 'compel' corporations to lead a more 'democratic fictional Life', we could get help from corporations to have a more 'truly democratic Life'. As it is now, corporations have no 'democratic duties'. Their sole existence and their sole duty, is to make a profit. All corporations should be 'democrats'.

Every Nation has a Social; every Social has an Economy; every Economy has a value system.

Every Nation has a Social; every Social has an Economy; and every social institution and economic institution has a value system. Of course, these value systems interact with each other at all times. Although they interact with each other, they do not equate to each others value system. Every Social is a 'condition of togetherness' and is constituted by 'real' Individuals and corporations. Of course, corporations are 'legal fictions', and hence not in the same category as a real Individual. Both the 'real' and the 'fictional' within the Social, constitute the Economy. The 'economy' and the 'social' interact with each other, but its important to understand that they function autonomously i.e., each is motored by its own value system. The social is motored by the moral value system of each 'real Individual'. 'Fictional entities', corporations, do not have a 'personal' value system; they have an economic value system or a Market 'value system'. That Market value system is motored by 'profits'. Of course, Democratic Nations all have a Political value system. That value system is the 'Freedom and Equality' of each and every 'real' Individual, or, 'person' within the Nation. The merging of political values and economic values is what screws up the works. The 'moral values' of the real Individual can function with the political values( Freedom and Equality) of the political system; but, the 'Market value system' of 'profits' cannot function within the social or the political. The 'political system' cannot be 'motored by profits'. Each system must retain its 'autonomy' and must be kept separate from the 'Other'. That should probably be a job for the 'interpretive practices' of the Supreme Court, but, obviously, if they decided Citizens, they don't get the picture.

There is a big difference between a 'Political value system' and a 'Human value system'.

Every Nation has a 'political value system', or, stated differently, every political system has a political 'structure'. Every Nation has a 'geographical area', or, a 'Jurisdictional system' that it 'calls' 'its own'. These political values 'define' and describes the Nations political Identity and its 'Governmental system'. Every Nation has a 'political relation' to its 'own People' and to the International sphere. But, regardless the differences in the Political systems, every Nation has a People. At this point of 'intersection' between the National and the International, the 'human race' has a huge problematic. Should the 'political value system' be imposed on the 'human value system'?, or, should the 'human value system' be imposed on the 'political value system'? You may think, that issue is frivolous, but is it? Every Nation is 'born' with 'political power'. It can do what it 'wants' with its People and on the International scene. Every human being is born 'helpless' and 'incomplete'; and must learn to live in a 'condition of togetherness' within 'every' National boundary, and must respect his-her neighbor. The 'togetherness' referred too in the 'last', is that of the Nation. If a human being must 'learn' to live together, why can't a Nation? Nations have advantages over humans, because they are 'born' with Power and can immediately assert their 'autonomy' and their 'antagonisms'. Of course, in a Democracy, it's assumed that a Democracy 'respects' the human condition, but, is that truly the case? Politicians vie for political office and then assert their 'individual' or 'Party preferences', which, unfortunately, is more 'economic' than 'human, instead of the 'most human'. Politically, we are different; humanly, we are the same.

Democracy is a theoretical structure; but, without 'Peoples' , it's useless.

Democracy is a theoretical structure; but, without its People, it cannot function. But, remember, so is every other form of Government. The problems arise when a Government must 'act' as a Government, on behalf of the People, or as a unified representative of the People. This last sentence applies to every Government in the World. But, some Governments are democracies and some are not. The problematic 'kicks in' when the Government, as representative of 'its People', acts within the larger domain of the International sphere. The issue then becomes; " was that a purely Government activity",i.e., one where the activity does not 'reflect' on the 'Individuals' living within the Nation, e. g. where a Nation establishes "Trade" relations with another Nation.( of course, all trade regulations will eventually 'seep down' to the People.) But, I use the word 'reflect', in a much more direct manner. For example, " a declaration of War", or, activity 'that could precipitate a War'. Extreme cases, I'm sure, but indicative of a 'direct connection' with the People. In a Democracy a Leader must consider, or should consider, the opinions of its People. In an Autocracy, or in any other form of Government, that is not 'Representative' of its People, the Leader acts with little or no concern for the People. To be sure, there will be 'economic concerns', 'technological concerns', ' allies', 'atomic weapons', etc., but the last concern, if any, will be the People. A Democracy will have all those concerns, but the main concern should be the welfare of its People. After all, its People who fight Wars, and in a Democracy, 'elections' always 'loom' in the future. Autocrats don't worry about elections; they worry about Revolutions and acquiring 'more advantages' on the International sphere. An interesting question arises; are Autocracies more 'efficient' Internationally?, or, are Democracies more 'efficient' Internationally?. "A can of worms", to be sure, but, an inquiry worth pursuing. Maybe later.

A Democratic Governemnt has a Three Branch structure, but each Branch is 'run' by 'People'.

A Democratic Government has a Three Branch Structure. The Top, or Executive Branch 'governs' the People at the Bottom. The Bottom are all the People in their 'condition of togetherness', 'each' of whom lives in Freedom and Equality. The Third Branch is the Judicial, which is the 'Interpretive Branch' which interprets the Laws that hold the Nation together. Of course, each Branch is put into 'motion' by the same People who constitute the 'Governed'. In other words, a Democratic Government is a Government 'of People'; 'by People'; and 'for the very same People who are the Governed. A Democracy is a Government that gets its Power to govern from the People it Governs. There is no other source of Power to Govern. Without People, a Nation with 'Power' cannot exist. From where will it get its 'Inception'; from where will it get its Power? Who will it govern, if not the People living in a 'condition of togetherness'? There are no 'empty Nations'; no 'geographical areas' that can be considered as 'institutions of Power', if those areas have no 'Peoples'. No! Only the 'People' in their 'condition of togetherness' can 'grant Power' to the Top of a Governing Institution. People existed before Nations, and if we are to have institutions called 'Nations', it better be one constituted by the People. Of course, we're down to the 'great problematic' of Government, namely the People who occupy the Branches of Government. Fortunately, Democracy is the best form of Government there is; unfortunately, some People misplace the 'aura of Power' in themselves, instead of in the 'form of Government'. There's nothing wrong with Democracy; its the People who 'run' it.